This is precisely what I meant. Before asking this question, I didn’t fully understand why, for example, 3.5.4 got a binary installer for windows and mac, but 3.5.5 did not. This thread has cleared that up for me.
From: Python-Dev <python-dev-bounces+tritium-list=sdamon....@python.org> On Behalf Of Donald Stufft Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 1:23 AM To: Ben Finney <ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au> Cc: python-dev@python.org Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] What is the rationale behind source only releases? On May 16, 2018, at 1:06 AM, Ben Finney <ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au <mailto:ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au> > wrote: I'd like to know the rationale behind source only releases of cpython. Software freedom entails the freedom to modify and build the software. For that, one needs the source form of the software. Portable software should be feasible to build from source, on a platform where no builds (of that particular release) were done before. For that, one needs the source form of the software. I’m guessing the question isn’t why is it useful to have a source release of CPython, but why does CPython transition from having both source releases and binary releases to only source releases. My assumption is the rationale is to reduce the maintenance burden as time goes on for older release channels.
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
